By Lori Weisberg / San Diego Union-Tribune / March 4, 2026
In a near-unanimous decision, the San Diego City Council agreed Tuesday to let voters decide whether a hefty tax should be imposed on thousands of second homes that are sitting empty most of the year.
The proposal, which will appear on the June ballot, is a divisive one and drew scores of people on both sides of the issue eager to voice their feelings on a tax that council members believe will be a key step forward in expanding the supply of rental and for-sale housing in San Diego.
The “empty homes tax,” as it is being called, would impose an initial annual tax of $8,000 on more than 5,000 homes unoccupied for more than half a year — plus a $4,000 surcharge for corporate-owned dwellings. In subsequent years, the tax would rise to $10,000, with the surcharge increasing to $5,000.
It is the brainchild of Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who just a month ago failed to win support from his colleagues for a far broader measure that would have also taxed whole-home short-term rentals.
“The desire to have a damn chance to live in the city is so strong and we need to encourage that,” Elo-Rivera said. “No one is asking for free housing. They want a chance to live in the city they love and that they work in. We heard it from teachers, we heard it from firefighters, we heard it from students, we heard it from recent grads. And that’s why homes shouldn’t be sitting empty during a housing crisis.”
Council President Joe LaCava acknowledged that for a problem as huge as housing affordability, the second homes tax is not a magical solution, but it will still help bring hundreds, if not thousands of homes back onto the market for San Diegans, he said.
“The empty homes initiative is not a silver bullet, in itself, to solve these challenges,” he said. “We know there isn’t one solution to make everything better. But let me be clear, every action we can take, small and targeted, big and bold, is important. This measure has the potential to move us in the right direction by generating new revenue to fund city services, turning empty houses into homes for San Diego, or some combination of the two.”
The lone dissenting vote came from Councilmember Raul Campillo, who signaled during a Rules Committee meeting last week that his final decision on advancing the measure would be based on advice he sought from the city attorney’s office on San Diego’s ability to legally defend a second-home tax should it be ratified by voters. The legal memo he requested at that meeting, he said, never arrived, and so he remained uncomfortable moving forward with a vote to place the measure on the ballot.
An empty homes tax has been adopted in other states and jurisdictions, including Berkeley and San Francisco. Not long after San Francisco voters passed the tax in 2022, a coalition of real estate interests sued the city, and in October 2024, a Superior Court judge struck down the law, ruling that it was unconstitutional and was pre-empted by state law. The city has appealed the ruling.
For balance of Lori’s article, please go here.
And there you have the campaign/mailer slogan: “Support housing for teachers and firefighters.”
As a teacher who has been teaching in San Diego for over 10 years, and still cannot afford to buy a home, I 100% support this tax! If you are fortunate enough to own one home in San Diego you already get a major tax break because of prop 13. So if you are wealthy enough to own two, you gotta pay for that luxury!
The largest number of targeted housing is high end Condos downtown. However, downtown real estate is in freefall. Bren sold Symphony Towers and One America Plaza for maybe 40 cents on the dollar, and that is looking at what they paid a generation ago. Same or worse for the Spreckels. Throw in $10/hr meters & homeless into the mix of vacant retail & office space and here comes the litmus test for downtown housing value. Best guess is that the sale of high end condos downtown will seriously and adversely affect the property tax rolls by far more than the fee collected. Owners of similar condos will request property tax reduction based upon this new reduced value. For the past few years, most were waiting to see what the downtown market had truly sunk to, and the Bren (Irvine Corp) sales confirmed the depth of the retail and office collapse. Seems like this combination of virtue signaling and fiscal immolation won’t end any better than Elo-Rivera’s other recent disasters such as parking meters for beaches, Adams Ave, and Balboa Park did.
Putting unused housing units back on the market and hopefully lowering sales prices through a combination of increased supply and reduced demand is exactly the idea. Attacking the demand side is exactly how we should be handling the “housing crisis”. Supply side YIMBY-ism doesn’t make any sense when we have so many actors in the housing market not looking for shelter. This is a slam dunk policy and doesn’t even begin to go far enough.
Well, this will certainly “attack the demand side”, because this is just our latest tax and fee scheme, and word is getting out that San Diego is an anti-snowbird, anti-tourist, homeless camp. Just read the letters section of the Union to see the disgust of long-time tourists who have concluded “never San Diego again.” I see other posts about how Prop 13 means property taxes are low and is some sort of free ride for owners. That million dollars for a SFR here will buy you two in Arizona, and even with higher property tax as an investor, your total property tax in Arizona will be roughly equivalent to Prop 13 levels here. We have become brainwashed into thinking that having the Nation’s highest tax rates, looking at almost all categories, when combined with disappointing City competency, is somehow normal. It isn’t.
“Just read the letters section of the Union to see the disgust of long-time tourists who have concluded “never San Diego again.” ”
Not sure anyone takes letters to the UT seriously, but if people do then maybe we’ll bet better quality tourists.
When I have to go up to Orange County on business I take the train with a number of tourists. I have had a multiplicity of conversations with tourists from U.S., Europe and Asia that all expressed to me that they will never again return to not only San Diego, but California. I’ve spoken at lenght to a couple from Japan that married and honeymooned here 25 years ago. At that time they had enjoyed San Diego so much, they spent an additional 3 weeks here. The kind woman became a little emotional and literally wept by what she has seen firsthand; at how callously this city and state treat the elderly and impoverished. Her husband, with all the respect in the world, confided in me that San Diegan’s should be ashamed of what we’ve allowed our “elected” leaders to do to “Paradise” as he put it.
Now we know! The Trash system was just a practice. With embedded numbers, the city can determine where that trash can is all the time, a practice run for the next step. It has already been studied and verified for pets. You just embed the number, and voila! You know exactly where a person is. Perhaps the same computer program can be used that is in use for trash cans. I had questioned the verification process when it was already obvious. Sorry.
So then a family member rents the house. Poof. This is right up there with Elo’s store coupon failure. If you have to go online to register for Balboa Park parking, how do people under served by store coupons get parking? And they get paid for this.
Yes, the quantity of electronic coupons at my grocery store of choice has plummeted. So in the end, we all pay more so Elo-Rivera gets to Virtue Signal on yet another issue. I’m sure all the parking meters on Adams Avenue in his district are a bit hit too.
Obviously unconstitutional and will never succeed. Take from the rich right? Always makes things better. 100% success. Ha
Considering it hasn’t been done successfully in over 50 years due to their vast wealth that can gridlock attempts in the legal system, all we can do is try :)
I have so many points to express on this that I couldn’t possibly cover them in the one minute that I was permitted to speak on Wednesday. I listened for nearly 3 hours to people who honestly have no idea of what they are talking about.
1. Private property ownership is just that. What I legally do with my property is none of anyone business.
2. Taxing people differently for how they USE their properties flies in the face of all the rhetoric that I hear about everyone paying their “FAIR SHARE”. Please explain to me how that is fair to tax someone differently because they don’t use THEIR PROPERTY (not public housing- but THEIR property) for over 182 days in one year.
3. Snowbirds buy a property here to get out of the horrible winters. These folks live in modest homes in their home states and probably sacrificed a lot to own a winter home. They probably don’t need or want to be here 6 months of the year. They contribute to our economy. THEY LOVE OUR CITY. and you think its just fine and well to hit THEM with a tax.. SHAME ON YOU! Really, shame on you.
4. How nice of you to PICK on the people who a) don’t live here full time and many or most don’t even know this is on the horizon and b) don’t get to vote! WOW– thats stunning!
5. This is a tax levied after people own their property and it is disparate. At minimum, this should have been a grandfathered in tax. So, people who want to buy know this going in. NO a sideswipe after the fact. again, to people who aren’t likely registered to vote here!
6. Some of the owners will decide to actually lease their properties out and I have news for you folks, it isn’t going to be a year round lease at “affordable rents”. Its going to be more Air B N B in single family residential neighborhoods. So, coming soon to a house near you will be ——–a potential nuisance. Some will sell their LUXURY 2nd homes, but that will do nothing to increase affordablity, because second homes aren’t often located in North Park, Clairemont, or SESD. They are likely located in the Coastal Regions.
7. There will be many unintended consequences if this passes. The one that concerns me the most is the Assault that is taking place on the Rights of Private Property Owners. It defies me. When you own a property you have the following rights: To Possess, To control, To Exclude, To Enjoy and to Dispose. I hope someone challenges this legally and takes all the cities to task that are deceiving the public.
8. These 2nd home owners probably produce LESS of a burden on our public services. They likely contribute a lot economically and you folks want to treat them like they are second hand citizens? IF the shoe was on the other foot and you were to treat poor people like you are treating supposed rich people there would be an outcry.
9. Homeowners MAY have to prove that they don’t use their home in San Diego for less than 182 days per year. What sort of privacy invasion is that going to look like?
10. Our City Leaders have done incredible damage to our housing market by permitting Air B and B. This should never have happened, and they have taken no accountability for this, yet they now scream from the rooftops that they don’t have affordable housing. Guess who contributed to this~! The same leaders who think that this is FAIR. Fair, because they want to punish people who don’t rent their properties out? This isn’t public housing— this is private housing. This will not create affordable housing. One of the unintended consequences will be that Visitors to our once Fine City will feel UNWELCOME.
I can hardly wait to hear all the lies that our city leaders will use to market and levy this UNFAIR tax upon Second Home Private Property Owners.
“1. Private property ownership is just that. What I legally do with my property is none of anyone business.”
I cannot personally wait to purchase the property next to Carol and open a mixed-use development with 100 units on top of an automotive shop/strip club combination on the ground floor. Of course, there are limits to what you can do legally with your property, and those limits are set by the government. In fact, the entire concept of private property is a creation of the government. This would be the government defining rules around the use of properties and it is most definitely not just the property owner’s business.
My favorite wine is cabernet.
Your favorite whine is “oh poor me”.
Allowing a property owner to do whatever they want with their property hasn’t been around for a 100 years. A property owner is constrained by zoning laws, height limits, set-back requirements and other legal limitations; do you think your neighbors would be down with you building a 30-story apartment on your SF lot? What if you wanted to put in a large chicken farm?
Yes there are common sense laws. This Elo one is a ruse. There should be limits on housing numbers when dealing with multiple properties a la Michael Mills? You can convert a 10mil commercial property into 10- 1mil houses and defer any taxes and depreciate the properties.
S E-R says it will only effect 1% of the housing units. Even if you gave 1% to deserving families, this would make no significant change to the housing challenged in our community. Why is the proposed tax revenue going to the general fund rather than set asside for housing assistance? This is simply a money grab by a broke city.
Apparently I wasn’t clear in my long comment above. I did say “legally” do. Which would include complying with the zoning and building laws as that would fall under the category of what can be legally done.
If I live in my private property year round or a portion thereof it should not be under the scrutiny of the government/city/state etc. it absolutely shouldn’t be taxed differently. I think they like this split tax rolls idea to make money.
The imagined housing shortage should not be shouldered by one group of people.
This is not about housing or freeing up housing. It is about a city and its mismanagement. That mismanagement includes stepping into the real estate housing market in ways that have severely damaged the housing stock. Just think if there were no air bnbs. Air bnb’s never should have been permitted into the housing market. Our laws were such that residential properties required a minimum of 30 days stay. The existence of air b n bs has caused properties to be worth more and therefore more attractive to investors which harms first time buyers and has inflated rental rates. This city council is making very deliberate efforts to dilute the rights of private property owners. We aren’t too many steps away from them telling you that you have an extra room in your home that you should rent it out or pay more tax. . Or maybe you will be required to offer it up for free. Pay close attention to the agenda of socialism. In my opinion it runs deep in the City Council and by the time people really wake up to the deceit, it will be too late. .
Would the proposed tax apply only to single family residences? If so, it should definitely be amended to include unoccupied apartments! Everywhere I go, I see new high rise apartment buildings with banners boasting “NOW LEASING”. Surely new vacant apartments will outnumber vacant second homes within the city, unless the apartment rents are truly affordable. The owners of the apartment complexes should be taxed on units which are not rented, at $12,000 per unit to start and $15,000 per unit in future years. (The corporate rate, because hey, you gotta incorporate a project like that.)
The Council members are representing this as a way to encourage (coerce) selfish two property owners to help solve a housing shortage. In reality, it is a way for the city to take in a lot of money. The article implies that there are more than 5,000 homes unoccupied for more than half a year. OK, that’s potentially $40 million to $60 million year one, or maybe twice as much with all the new “luxury” apartments popping up.
How would this money be used? Council President Joe LaCava suggests it might “fund city services”. No, thank you! It should be used to build housing. The city already owns suitable property where these funds, in the right hands, could create housing which hard working, low wage earning people can afford to rent.
I cannot think of a faster way to kill any new housing development in San Diego. Guaranteed fiscal immolation is a powerful incentive to take your business elsewhere.
Simple solution, San Diego County resident homeowners and San Diego based general partnerships with 2 or fewer properties should be exempt.
A scalable corporate/LLC tax, increasing with the number of units owned should be implemented based on units that only provide short term occupancy on any and all properties owned and operated from out of city, county or state.
Hotels should be exempt.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it’s a hotel, if it is owner occupied then it is a Bed and Breakfast. It’s no longer a home, it’s a business, subject to zoning like every other business.